list to learn
- Thread starter leon-b
- Start date
Really, my eyes just fall onto those telegraph poles. I think it would be a poorer picture without them - the sharpness of their shape gives the eye something to "settle" on.
I uses Paint shop Pro to crop the image, but any editing software should be able to take a part of an image and save it as a new image. I just kept it normal shape but just took the bottom left of your image. You (I think) just cut the top off? Its worh knowing that the human eye likes certain shapes and a 3:2 ratio is a good one to stick to
I think the sun and the telegraph poles give what one of your marsh scenes lacked - a point the eye settles on
Great photo mate
Red
I uses Paint shop Pro to crop the image, but any editing software should be able to take a part of an image and save it as a new image. I just kept it normal shape but just took the bottom left of your image. You (I think) just cut the top off? Its worh knowing that the human eye likes certain shapes and a 3:2 ratio is a good one to stick to
I think the sun and the telegraph poles give what one of your marsh scenes lacked - a point the eye settles on
Great photo mate
Red
British Red said:
Nope, don't like anything man made in my landscapes if i can help it. I photoshop them out
The offer stands to Leon too, if you don't want them there send me the file and i'll get rid!
Go on Leon - let him try - it would be interesting to see the same landscape without them for me...I feel a poll coming on!
Red
Edit to say
Leon - yep - I like no 3 much more
Red
Edit to say
Leon - yep - I like no 3 much more
Good call. It does no harm to try things (just save under different names). If you don't like em - try to work out why you don't - it will make you a betetr photographer
Red
Red
Ta
I don't often think about compostition in the computer, prefering to do as much as possible in the camera, but occasionaly circumstances prevent it.
Here's one of some threatening clouds over the black Cullins on the isle of skye, snatched as we were running back to the car as they were heading in our direction.......
And the same one after i had finished with it in the computer. The crop is close but the telegraphs poles were removed by photoshop not the crop.
I don't often think about compostition in the computer, prefering to do as much as possible in the camera, but occasionaly circumstances prevent it.
Here's one of some threatening clouds over the black Cullins on the isle of skye, snatched as we were running back to the car as they were heading in our direction.......
And the same one after i had finished with it in the computer. The crop is close but the telegraphs poles were removed by photoshop not the crop.
Certainly see your point about the man-made things but they do give
quite a good sense of scale - quite a nice sweeping road, even with
the white car and person in shot.
I liked the 17.45 shot from Leon with the wires at the top as they seemed
to mirror the ones below quite nicely. Also the clouds at the top were
a little fuller and matched the fuzziness of the tree top scenery.
The tweaked versions certainly emphasise the sun more.
I've seen some stunning photos on Flickr of steel lattice towers (pylons)
- you either love them or hate them of course! - which can look
very dramatic against a skyline.
Jo
quite a good sense of scale - quite a nice sweeping road, even with
the white car and person in shot.
I liked the 17.45 shot from Leon with the wires at the top as they seemed
to mirror the ones below quite nicely. Also the clouds at the top were
a little fuller and matched the fuzziness of the tree top scenery.
The tweaked versions certainly emphasise the sun more.
I've seen some stunning photos on Flickr of steel lattice towers (pylons)
- you either love them or hate them of course! - which can look
very dramatic against a skyline.
Jo
Jodie said:
Dont get me wrong, manmade objects certainly have their place in photo's. I have a number of old photo's (on paper no less
) of manmade objects.Most of the time i prefer to remove them if possible to emphasise the "wild beauty" of the place.
I am not exactly a "people person" either, so that may have something to do with it
Its all good - beauty is beauty.
I'm looking forward to seeing the "re-touched" version. I was in two minds about the top wires but I like the ones witht he poles but without the wires most. But thats just me. Isn't that the great thing about art?
Red
I'm looking forward to seeing the "re-touched" version. I was in two minds about the top wires but I like the ones witht he poles but without the wires most. But thats just me. Isn't that the great thing about art?
Red
Hi Leon mate,
I wanted to pop this photo up to assist a little more with your picture taking. Its one leaf, shot in a macro mode. I'd like you to notice more than the sharpness of the leaf. Notice how the background is fuzzy (out of focus)?
This is a concept called "depth of field". It basically means that only a short distance is "in focus". If you use "aperture priority" on your camera, you can vary the "depth of field". A long "depth of field" indicates a small aperture (hole in the lens) and hence a long exposure (say 1/30th of a second rather than 1/250th). This demands a tripod to stop "shake" (hand tremble) causing the image to blur. A short depth of field is useful for close ups as the thing you have focussed on "stands out" against a background blur. Its rubbish for landscapes though where you want everything in focus. Does that make any sense at all? I'm trying to show that depth of field is one of those things you need to consider - for landscapes, a lot of depth of field is good. For macro and portrait work (including animals and plants) a short depth of field makes the subject stand out. Probably burbling here so I'll just post the picture
Red
I wanted to pop this photo up to assist a little more with your picture taking. Its one leaf, shot in a macro mode. I'd like you to notice more than the sharpness of the leaf. Notice how the background is fuzzy (out of focus)?
This is a concept called "depth of field". It basically means that only a short distance is "in focus". If you use "aperture priority" on your camera, you can vary the "depth of field". A long "depth of field" indicates a small aperture (hole in the lens) and hence a long exposure (say 1/30th of a second rather than 1/250th). This demands a tripod to stop "shake" (hand tremble) causing the image to blur. A short depth of field is useful for close ups as the thing you have focussed on "stands out" against a background blur. Its rubbish for landscapes though where you want everything in focus. Does that make any sense at all? I'm trying to show that depth of field is one of those things you need to consider - for landscapes, a lot of depth of field is good. For macro and portrait work (including animals and plants) a short depth of field makes the subject stand out. Probably burbling here so I'll just post the picture
Red
Right a VERY quick job on the retouch...
to be honest i have man-flu and am really not in the mood to spend days doing it so you might be able to see the join
The cropped and retouched version (how i would have done it)
or maybe like this
to be honest i have man-flu and am really not in the mood to spend days doing it so you might be able to see the join
The cropped and retouched version (how i would have done it)
or maybe like this
Similar threads
